Democrats 2020

[TV and credit cards]

Pete Buttigieg sits down with Chris Matthews after the debate and gets a few questions thrown at him. Listen to how he handles them and Chris' comment at the end.

[video]https://www.msnbc.com/hardball/watch/pete-buttigieg-white-house-has-no-meaningful-foreign-policy-73803845680[/video]

For the internet impaired: The knowledge that flows out of this guy without pause is so impressive. He challenges others to a "more robust" debate on the issues. Questions Warren's proposed specific cut in military spending alluding that she doesn't fully appreciate the gravity of what she is proposing. At the end, Chris states he always feels like Buttigieg got his questions two weeks prior to.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Class war was tried in Australia's recent elections and failed miserably. It frightened the shite out most people returning the government that was gone for all money according to most of the polling. In fact the Labor party was so cock sure of the result that bullshit Bill actually wrote a letter to the PM advising him to hand over the keys to the Lodge in an orderly manner.

I actually agree with Angelo here. Class war is immoral and hurtful. We need to come together to fix problems. Besides, the real deal is that the US is in a Moral War, not class. People are separated by their moral beliefs.

 

[PyramidHead]

Class war was tried in Australia's recent elections and failed miserably. It frightened the shite out most people returning the government that was gone for all money according to most of the polling. In fact the Labor party was so cock sure of the result that bullshit Bill actually wrote a letter to the PM advising him to hand over the keys to the Lodge in an orderly manner.

I actually agree with Angelo here. Class war is immoral and hurtful. We need to come together to fix problems. Besides, the real deal is that the US is in a Moral War, not class. People are separated by their moral beliefs.

Liberals will always side with fascists against socialists, exhibit number seventy billion and three

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Class war was tried in Australia's recent elections and failed miserably. It frightened the shite out most people returning the government that was gone for all money according to most of the polling. In fact the Labor party was so cock sure of the result that bullshit Bill actually wrote a letter to the PM advising him to hand over the keys to the Lodge in an orderly manner.

I actually agree with Angelo here. Class war is immoral and hurtful. We need to come together to fix problems. Besides, the real deal is that the US is in a Moral War, not class. People are separated by their moral beliefs.

Liberals will always side with fascists against socialists, exhibit number seventy billion and three

Harry Bosch is a liberal social, moderate/right leaning moderate economic person. I remember when he seemed to be conservative... until the political spectrum in the US went to hell.

 

[PyramidHead]

Liberals will always side with fascists against socialists, exhibit number seventy billion and three

Harry Bosch is a liberal social, moderate/right leaning moderate economic person. I remember when he seemed to be conservative... until the political spectrum in the US went to hell.

Regardless, when commerce is at risk and the privilege of never having to think about poor people is under threat, class interests trump culture every time, and the "socially liberal, fiscally moderate" types start writing opinion columns about how the election should cater to their preferences. When push comes to shove, they tend to vote for the one who lets them accumulate the most wealth. Fascists know this and it's an integral part of their strategy throughout history

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Liberals will always side with fascists against socialists, exhibit number seventy billion and three

Harry Bosch is a liberal social, moderate/right leaning moderate economic person. I remember when he seemed to be conservative... until the political spectrum in the US went to hell.

Regardless...

No, the facts aren't 'regardless'. You keep making judgments of people that you clearly don't understand their positions.

...when commerce is at risk and the privilege of never having to think about poor people is under threat, class interests trump culture every time, and the "socially liberal, fiscally moderate" types start writing opinion columns about how the election should cater to their preferences.

Except it is people like them that are the bridge to safety nets. The trouble is, you don't give a damn about a plan or a message. There are people out there that would be good with higher taxation to provide services, but there has to be a plan. A viable, sustainable plan.

And you've shown you don't particularly care about plans or how to message such plans... you just want to go the Underwear Gnome route, which will lose every time.

 

[Politesse]

Describing the most basic attempts at economic equality as a "class war", then complaining that others aren't trying hard enough to work together and find consensus, is pretty damn rich. Doctor, take thine own damn prescription.

For the record, legal taxation and redistribution, even if it were on a much more overtly socialist level than any US politicians is suggesting, is not class warfare. Class warfare is when different classes of people go to war.

If Congress enacted a 90% tax on the billionaires tomorrow, that still would not be the poor rising up to attack the wealthy. Congress is the wealthy. Such an action would be nothing more than a gesture to appease the actual poor, and convince them.not to protest their situation. Marx would never have suggested paying off the proletariat in such a fashion, while continuing to keep them alienated from the means of producing wealth. Certainly not as a permanent solution.

 

[lpetrich]

Democratic debate 2019: The best answers from November’s MSNBC debate - Vox
Warren on impeachment - Congress was unwilling to act on the Mueller Report, so Trump felt enabled to extort Ukraine. Ambassador Sondland got his position in exchange for a campaign contribution, and she pledges to reject that. No other candidate has done so.

Biden on prosecuting Trump - he'd let the Attorney General make his/her judgment rather than directing the AG to prosecute anyone.

Sanders on Saudi Arabia

think I may have been the first person up here to make it clear that Saudi Arabia not only murdered Khashoggi, but this is a brutal dictatorship which does everything it can to crush democracy, treats women as third-class citizens.

And when we rethink our American foreign policy, what we have got to know is that Saudi Arabia is not a reliable ally. We have got to bring Iran and Saudi Arabia together in a room under American leadership and say we are sick and tired of us spending huge amounts of money and human resources because of your conflicts.

And by the way, the same thing goes with Israel and the Palestinians. It is no longer good enough for us simply to be pro-Israel. I am pro-Israel. But we must treat the Palestinian people as well with the respect and dignity that they deserve. What is going on in Gaza right now, where youth unemployment is 70 percent or 80 percent, is unsustainable. So we need to be rethinking who our allies are around the world, work with the United Nations, and not continue to support brutal dictatorships.

Harris on child care - so women aren't as burdened as much by caring for their families

Booker on criminal justice and marijuana - he noted that black people are punished much more than white people for marijuana use, especially privileged white people

 

[PyramidHead]

Regardless...

No, the facts aren't 'regardless'. You keep making judgments of people that you clearly don't understand their positions.

...when commerce is at risk and the privilege of never having to think about poor people is under threat, class interests trump culture every time, and the "socially liberal, fiscally moderate" types start writing opinion columns about how the election should cater to their preferences.

Except it is people like them that are the bridge to safety nets. The trouble is, you don't give a damn about a plan or a message. There are people out there that would be good with higher taxation to provide services, but there has to be a plan. A viable, sustainable plan.

You're wrong. They are not the bridge, they are the roadblock, as evidenced by the fact that the rise of the financial sector has coincided neatly with the erosion of the safety net across both Democratic and Republican administrations. I also think we need a plan to tax the rich and redistribute their stolen wealth, but the difference is that the plan I favor involves the electorate participating in the process beyond casting their votes, so it gets dismissed as fantasy. The real fantasy is thinking the existing power structure in government and corporate America will allow any legislation to threaten its dominance of the economy. We need a new power structure, not a slightly higher tax rate that the rich agree is consistent with their continued spot as rulers of society.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No, the facts aren't 'regardless'. You keep making judgments of people that you clearly don't understand their positions.
Except it is people like them that are the bridge to safety nets. The trouble is, you don't give a damn about a plan or a message. There are people out there that would be good with higher taxation to provide services, but there has to be a plan. A viable, sustainable plan.

You're wrong. They are not the bridge, they are the roadblock, as evidenced by the fact that the rise of the financial sector has coincided neatly with the erosion of the safety net across both Democratic and Republican administrations. I also think we need a plan to tax the rich and redistribute their stolen wealth, but the difference is that the plan I favor involves the electorate participating in the process beyond casting their votes, so it gets dismissed as fantasy.

Well first, you'd need to actually present a plan in order for it to not be thought as fantasy or even imaginary.

The real fantasy is thinking the existing power structure in government and corporate America will allow any legislation to threaten its dominance of the economy. We need a new power structure, not a slightly higher tax rate that the rich agree is consistent with their continued spot as rulers of society.

Yes, that's nice. You continue to pretend that the revolution is going to happen any time now. Anyone dumb enough to believe what you just wrote is grossfully ignorant of American history and the quasi-failure of the Socialists in the US. It ignores how and why the AFL (kind of socialist) won over the IWW (socialist). Such thinking is akin to libertarianism. It ignores human nature of not just the wealthy, but the not wealthy.

 

[lpetrich]

Kamala Calls Out Tulsi, Biden’s Poor Word Choice and 4 Other Highlights From 5th Democratic Debate
1. Kamala Harris and Tulsi Gabbard go head-to-head over Gabbard’s record
After TG criticized the Democratic Party "is a party that has been and continues to be influenced by the foreign-policy establishment represented by Hillary Clinton, the military-industrial complex and other greedy interests," KH responded by asking how much of a Democrat she is, criticizing Obama on Fox News, then wanting to buddy up with Steve Bannon, and never criticizing Bashar Assad's regime's human-rights record. “What Senator Harris is doing is unfortunately continuing to traffic in smears and lies and innuendos because she cannot challenge the substance of the argument that I’m making, the leadership and the change I am seeking to bring in our foreign policy,” TG responded.

2. Joe Biden’s poor word choice about violence against women - “punching at it.”

3. Biden, forgetting about Harris, says he is endorsed by the “only” African American woman elected to the senate - Carol Mosley Braun

4. Harris addresses white candidates’ outreach — or lack thereof — to black voters - only during election time, it seems, and ignoring them the rest of the time.

5. Pete Buttigieg attacks Gabbard’s “judgment” for meeting with Bashar al-Assad

6. Memorable one-liners:
Amy Klobuchar: “‘If you think a woman can’t beat Donald Trump, Nancy Pelosi does it every single day.”
Pete Buttigieg: he is the “least wealthy person on this stage.”


As to how they dressed, all the men wore business suits with Andrew Yang being the only tieless one. Kamala Harris wore a white pantsuit, Amy Klobuchar a blue skirtsuit or a blue dress with a blue jacket, Elizabeth Warren a dark purple jacket with her usual black shirt and pants, and Kamala Harris a light gray jacket and pants with a purple shirt.

 

[PyramidHead]

Well first, you'd need to actually present a plan in order for it to not be thought as fantasy or even imaginary.

Are we talking about the same candidate here? The one with the website detailing all of his plans, the one who wrote the bill that half the people campaigning against it co-signed? That's a baseless smear.

Yes, that's nice. You continue to pretend that the revolution is going to happen any time now. Anyone dumb enough to believe what you just wrote is grossfully ignorant of American history and the quasi-failure of the Socialists in the US. It ignores how and why the AFL (kind of socialist) won over the IWW (socialist). Such thinking is akin to libertarianism. It ignores human nature of not just the wealthy, but the not wealthy.

Your reply has all the usual chestnuts, but it's not a total loss because you managed to include the word "grossfully". The AFL is a reactionary organization that won dominance like every other political force in the country: by assisting imperialism. In every instance, it has supported the US and capital over progressive or left-wing governments around the world. Its long and dirty history of being a cheerleader for the state department can be found here. Given that fact, what you're saying amounts to what centrists always say: in the past, socialists were not successful, therefore they can never be successful, because human nature. It's not even worth explaining why such a simplistic take is not only inaccurate but exactly what needs to be dismissed if we want to make any actual progress.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well first, you'd need to actually present a plan in order for it to not be thought as fantasy or even imaginary.

Are we talking about the same candidate here? The one with the website detailing all of his plans, the one who wrote the bill that half the people campaigning against it co-signed? That's a baseless smear.

So you have nothing to provide then?

Yes, that's nice. You continue to pretend that the revolution is going to happen any time now. Anyone dumb enough to believe what you just wrote is grossfully ignorant of American history and the quasi-failure of the Socialists in the US. It ignores how and why the AFL (kind of socialist) won over the IWW (socialist). Such thinking is akin to libertarianism. It ignores human nature of not just the wealthy, but the not wealthy.

Your reply has all the usual chestnuts, but it's not a total loss because you managed to include the word "grossfully". The AFL is a reactionary organization that won dominance like every other political force in the country: by assisting imperialism. In every instance, it has supported the US and capital over progressive or left-wing governments around the world. Its long and dirty history of being a cheerleader for the state department can be found here. Given that fact, what you're saying amounts to what centrists always say: in the past, socialists were not successful, therefore they can never be successful, because human nature. It's not even worth explaining why such a simplistic take is not only inaccurate but exactly what needs to be dismissed if we want to make any actual progress.

My glob your are deaf as a door knob. The note regarding human nature is important because it wasn't just the organization atop the AFL mountain that led to the AFL winning. The AFL started from nothing, much like the IWW. The IWW lost because it didn't have the enduring support of members. Yes, IWW membership would increase during strikes, but once people got concessions, they dropped back, they always drop back in order to maintain them. So IWW would grow and contract while the AFL would support labor, but not rock the boat too much.

You can blame executives all you want, but if people aren't willing to fight it, you are foolish for suggesting that there is a fight to be had. A socialist noted in, I believe, the early 20th century 'There is something inherent in human nature that makes our cause a pathetic joke.' You are ready to go and wage a war with no army, or your Godot.

 

[PyramidHead]

My glob your are deaf as a door knob. The note regarding human nature is important because it wasn't just the organization atop the AFL mountain that led to the AFL winning. The AFL started from nothing, much like the IWW. The IWW lost because it didn't have the enduring support of members. Yes, IWW membership would increase during strikes, but once people got concessions, they dropped back, they always drop back in order to maintain them. So IWW would grow and contract while the AFL would support labor, but not rock the boat too much.

Which led to the thriving labor movement and strong working class we have today! Thanks AFL

You can blame executives all you want, but if people aren't willing to fight it, you are foolish for suggesting that there is a fight to be had. A socialist noted in, I believe, the early 20th century 'There is something inherent in human nature that makes our cause a pathetic joke.' You are ready to go and wage a war with no army, or your Godot.

Again, you commit the same fallacy: because people in the past were not willing to fight for something, people in general will never be willing to fight for it. The conditions in society that might affect people's willingness to fight for something are absolutely identical between today and 50 years ago, so instead of examining why they lost the fight we should conclude that homo sapiens is just not the kind of animal that should fight for something more than once. As of yesterday, the Sanders campaign broke the 4 million mark in individual donations, a first for any political campaign in history, and it's just getting started. If you want to talk about "no army", you're picking on the wrong movement.

 

[lpetrich]

The Fifth Democratic Debate In 6 Charts | FiveThirtyEight

Klobuchar, Yang, Booker, and Buttigieg performed better than average, with Harris somewhat behind. Steyer, Sanders, and Warren performed close to average, and Biden and Gabbard worse than average.

Warren talked the most, and Buttigieg mentioned the President the most.

Pete Buttigieg: the latest polling surge, explained - Vox - he's doing well in Iowa.

 

[Ford]

The Fifth Democratic Debate In 6 Charts | FiveThirtyEight

Klobuchar, Yang, Booker, and Buttigieg performed better than average, with Harris somewhat behind. Steyer, Sanders, and Warren performed close to average, and Biden and Gabbard worse than average.

Warren talked the most, and Buttigieg mentioned the President the most.

Pete Buttigieg: the latest polling surge, explained - Vox - he's doing well in Iowa.

The more I see of Mayor Pete, the more I think "this guy's got the goods." He's obviously very intelligent. He's got some good answers for the "you're too young" and "you're just a small town mayor" challenges, but I've noticed something else that he does.

All candidates nowadays have their talking points. The typical response to any question from a debate moderator or town hall participant is to say "that's a great question," and to fall back on their blurb which most often doesn't answer the question and is really just what the candidate wants to talk about. Sanders does this a lot. Buttigieg is a bit different. He actually answers the question. Does he do it in talking points form? Sure, but rather than redirect the discussion to something HE wants to talk about, he answers what the questioner brought up.

Plus, he doesn't shout that much. Sanders is pretty much shouting at his audience all the time. Warren (whom I liked quite a bit before she got into politics) seems always strident. Harris is in combative mode all the time. Mayor Pete?

Cool as a cucumber.

 

[Harry Bosch]

The Fifth Democratic Debate In 6 Charts | FiveThirtyEight

Klobuchar, Yang, Booker, and Buttigieg performed better than average, with Harris somewhat behind. Steyer, Sanders, and Warren performed close to average, and Biden and Gabbard worse than average.

Warren talked the most, and Buttigieg mentioned the President the most.

Pete Buttigieg: the latest polling surge, explained - Vox - he's doing well in Iowa.

The more I see of Mayor Pete, the more I think "this guy's got the goods." He's obviously very intelligent. He's got some good answers for the "you're too young" and "you're just a small town mayor" challenges, but I've noticed something else that he does.

All candidates nowadays have their talking points. The typical response to any question from a debate moderator or town hall participant is to say "that's a great question," and to fall back on their blurb which most often doesn't answer the question and is really just what the candidate wants to talk about. Sanders does this a lot. Buttigieg is a bit different. He actually answers the question. Does he do it in talking points form? Sure, but rather than redirect the discussion to something HE wants to talk about, he answers what the questioner brought up.

Plus, he doesn't shout that much. Sanders is pretty much shouting at his audience all the time. Warren (whom I liked quite a bit before she got into politics) seems always strident. Harris is in combative mode all the time. Mayor Pete?

Cool as a cucumber.

Yea, I agree. I still like Kloubloucher, but really starting to like Pete more. He grows on you. Calm. Charismatic. Very smart. On the reverse, I like Tulsi less and less.

 

[PyramidHead]

The Fifth Democratic Debate In 6 Charts | FiveThirtyEight

Klobuchar, Yang, Booker, and Buttigieg performed better than average, with Harris somewhat behind. Steyer, Sanders, and Warren performed close to average, and Biden and Gabbard worse than average.

Warren talked the most, and Buttigieg mentioned the President the most.

Pete Buttigieg: the latest polling surge, explained - Vox - he's doing well in Iowa.

The more I see of Mayor Pete, the more I think "this guy's got the goods." He's obviously very intelligent. He's got some good answers for the "you're too young" and "you're just a small town mayor" challenges, but I've noticed something else that he does.

All candidates nowadays have their talking points. The typical response to any question from a debate moderator or town hall participant is to say "that's a great question," and to fall back on their blurb which most often doesn't answer the question and is really just what the candidate wants to talk about. Sanders does this a lot. Buttigieg is a bit different. He actually answers the question. Does he do it in talking points form? Sure, but rather than redirect the discussion to something HE wants to talk about, he answers what the questioner brought up.

Plus, he doesn't shout that much. Sanders is pretty much shouting at his audience all the time. Warren (whom I liked quite a bit before she got into politics) seems always strident. Harris is in combative mode all the time. Mayor Pete?

Cool as a cucumber.

You may have distilled the political vacuity of liberalism into a tincture so concentrated that single drop is capable of feeding an entire room full of people wearing Patagonia vests

 

[Ford]

The Fifth Democratic Debate In 6 Charts | FiveThirtyEight

Klobuchar, Yang, Booker, and Buttigieg performed better than average, with Harris somewhat behind. Steyer, Sanders, and Warren performed close to average, and Biden and Gabbard worse than average.

Warren talked the most, and Buttigieg mentioned the President the most.

Pete Buttigieg: the latest polling surge, explained - Vox - he's doing well in Iowa.

The more I see of Mayor Pete, the more I think "this guy's got the goods." He's obviously very intelligent. He's got some good answers for the "you're too young" and "you're just a small town mayor" challenges, but I've noticed something else that he does.

All candidates nowadays have their talking points. The typical response to any question from a debate moderator or town hall participant is to say "that's a great question," and to fall back on their blurb which most often doesn't answer the question and is really just what the candidate wants to talk about. Sanders does this a lot. Buttigieg is a bit different. He actually answers the question. Does he do it in talking points form? Sure, but rather than redirect the discussion to something HE wants to talk about, he answers what the questioner brought up.

Plus, he doesn't shout that much. Sanders is pretty much shouting at his audience all the time. Warren (whom I liked quite a bit before she got into politics) seems always strident. Harris is in combative mode all the time. Mayor Pete?

Cool as a cucumber.

You may have distilled the political vacuity of liberalism into a tincture so concentrated that single drop is capable of feeding an entire room full of people wearing Patagonia vests

Ah yes, I forgot. The conservatives don't value things like intelligence and answering questions. They like their leaders to be stupid, loud, misogynistic pathological liars.

 

[PyramidHead]

You may have distilled the political vacuity of liberalism into a tincture so concentrated that single drop is capable of feeding an entire room full of people wearing Patagonia vests

Ah yes, I forgot. The conservatives don't value things like intelligence and answering questions. They like their leaders to be stupid, loud, misogynistic pathological liars.

My point is that Trump's badness is only tangentially related to his stupidity, loudness, misogyny, and lying. His badness is mainly in his fascist ideology and the policies he enacts. In the same way, what we need instead of Trump is not someone who is intelligent and good at answering questions. We need someone with a good ideology and good policy ideas who is aware of what it takes to enact them.